Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

suraj.sun writes with this quote from CNet:
"House Republicans voted unanimously today to block controversial Net neutrality regulations from taking effect, a move that is likely to invite a confrontation with President Obama. By a vote of 241 to 178, the House of Representatives adopted a one-page resolution that says, simply, the regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on December 21 'shall have no force or effect.' 'Congress did not authorize the FCC to regulate in this area,' Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), said during this morning's floor debate. 'We must reject any rules that it promulgates in this area... It is Congress' responsibility to delegate that authority.'"

It's a good thing, then, that a House Resolution, by itself, also has "no force or effect". It seems our current House of Representatives thinks that it is good to waste time and money passing House Resolutions defunding or outlawing everything that they don't like, all the while knowing that each resolution they pass has no chance to get past the Senate or the President. Why are they wasting time with this? Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?

Only if the Republican party gains more power in the next election. They currently hold a third of the cards, not the whole deck. I agree it's a bad sign but expected. The republican party has always looked out for business interests and this is no exception.

I'm just surprised that they got 10 Democrats to vote with them. That's just as troubling.

Also, wasn't the FCC key in getting the special treatment these broadband companies now enjoy?

In whatever forms they eventually take, regulations will be adjusted periodically to allow prioritization of 'pretty packets' (meaning "Important" packets, and packets belonging to large campaign contributors). Latency problems will oscillate every few years from NPR to Fox News and from GE to Walmart.

Indecent, incendiary and potentially infringing packets will be inexorably deprioritized to make room for more of the prettier packets. Everyone's traffic experience will get better and better over time under benevolent, centralized, adult supervision of everyone's traffic management practices. You won't have to think about it personally.

The only ovelap between net neutrality and QoS is that on a neutral Internet, QoS may not be used to differentiate between services from different providers. The concept of net neutrality doesn't cover much on QoS, but allowing the ISP to specify QoS rules would create loopholes big enough to drive a truck though (they could give all VPN services a way higher priority and then offer ComCastVPN accounts to effectively do an end-run around net neutrality), so it's probably best to only allow QoS rules to be s

Everything should always work, it's just a matter of speed and priority. The only reasonable argument for non-neutrality is that certain services should get higher priority than other services: for instance, VoIP and streaming video (Skype, Netflix, etc.) should have the highest priority because they're very latency-sensitive, while BitTorrent and other P2P should have the lowest priority because they're not and are normally done in the background, and everything else should be in the middle. But lower pr

Wrong. You're only looking at particular issues that the Dems have selected to pander to certain groups of voters on, so that they can get elected. The Republicans do the same thing: guns, anti-abortion, lower taxes, etc. Did you see any lower taxes for regular people during the Republicans' reign in 00-06? Nope. Did you see any pro-gun legislation during that time? Nope. In fact, Obama has been more gun-friendly than Bush, as under Obama, you're now allowed to carry a gun with you in National Parks

The myth that voters vote in their own self-interest has been busted a very long time ago.

I know an ultra-right wing, ultra-conservative, ultra-christian man, who thinks the tea party is the greatest thing in the universe, who probably has a tattoo of G.W. Bush somewhere on him, and who actually sends money to Israel to "immanentize the eschaton" (ahem). His daughter has four kids, and supports them all through welfare, food stamps, and some church handouts, and whose wasted a large chunk of money on faile

When I watch the seemingly flagrant way that Republicans seem to turn away from the Public Good these days, for example in network neutrality, financial regulation, or global warming, I am reminded of this quote

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Which rules? You mean the ones that they couldn't even pass when the Dems had control of Congress and the White House? Obviously, they never meant to pass them in the first place. Probably what happened is some tiny minority of Dems thought it'd be a good idea, tried to push it through, and was utterly defeated when mainstream Dems listened to their employers, the media corporations who didn't want NN, and voted it down.

There's a tiny, tiny minority in each party that is OK, trying to make laws that actu

Yeah, aha. You do understand that as a result of the last election Republicans got as clear a mandate as any party got in recent history?

You do realize that, unfortunately, there is a sizeable block of voters who premise their voting decisions on their perceived direction of the economy. If the economy seems to be declining, they vote the current party out. If it seems to be improving, they vote for the party in power. Many voters don't have a clue of the detailed political philosophies of individual parties. I am not saying all voters are like this. But there is a large block of voters who seem to vote robotically like this. So when y

It seems our current House of Representatives thinks that it is good to waste time and money passing House Resolutions defunding or outlawing everything that they don't like, all the while knowing that each resolution they pass has no chance to get past the Senate or the President.

Get this: it is now being reported that the most recent "compromise" offered by the House Republicans on the budget is if the Dems agree to an additional $13billion in budget cuts (above the $33 billion already agreed to which was their last demand) and if they agree to provision to the budget bill that will outlaw the use of federal funds for abortion even though it is already federal law that funds cannot be used for abortion, then they will go for that compromise.

It's a hostage situation where the ransom demands keep going up. And "abortion"? Really? I thought this was a "budgetary crisis". Why are they demanding this provision (which is already the law) unless the whole thing is just theater?

Next, they will demand that there be a special provision which makes it illegal to be President if you're black and all muslims required to eat pork chops.

I'm really glad the voters are getting a chance to see this play out. Yeah, most of them are oblivious, but between this "budget battle" and the terms of the new Ryan budget, we're getting a rare opportunity to see the GOP dropping pretense. A rare exposition of the stark difference.

Well...that's kind of what happens. The Hyde Amendment is put in just about every appropriations bill, but Republicans still demand each individual law have anti-abortion language in it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next appropriations bill for highway funding has some anti-abortion language in it.

It's all a racket to get votes. If you really believe that life begins at conception (which is a rational view to have), then you have to believe that any abortion is murder and the abortion provider along with

Next, they will demand that there be a special provision which makes it illegal to be President if you're black and all muslims required to eat pork chops.

I think facetious and unwarranted accusations of racism ought to be condemned just as harshly as racism itself. Despicable.

Racism has been a powerful tool for Republicans for... well, ever. Or anyway, at least through the 20th century. Obama birthers are frothing at the mouth based on race, and another fantastic example is immigration debate. I mean, let's be real here: many Americans are pretty effing racist, and Republicans have shown themselves perfectly willing to manipulate their base using any tool available, irrespective of ethical concerns.

The civil rights act of 1964 was passed primarily due to Republican support, over strenuous objections of Democrats.

That's a misleading half truth - ain't no "primarily" about it. In the house, 152 Democrats and 138 Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the Senate 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted to end the filibuster against the bill. Furthermore, votes were mostly correlated with region, not party with southern members of both parties voting against the bill and northern members of both parties voting for the bill.

However, the act was a turning point for both parties with many of those who did vote against it migrating to the Republican party and essentially chasing out the liberal faction. Afterwards Nixon adopted the "Southern Strategy" of race-baiting that has lasted in some form or another ever since.

Essentially any significant republican support for civil rights ended with that vote - most of the people who supported the act ended up being chased out of the republican party and bolstering the democratic party instead. That sequence of events does paint a pretty picture for republican party support of civil rights.

The civil rights act of 1964 was passed primarily due to Republican support, over strenuous objections of Democrats

You're talking almost half a century ago.

There certainly were a lot of Southern racists in the Democratic Party back then, but over that time they have abandoned the Democrats. Any that still might be around certainly left in 2008 when a black man became the head of the Democratic Party. Tell me, what self-respecting (sic) racist would be a member of a party that had a black man at the top?

And where do you think all the racists that left the Democratic Party went? Do you think they all moved to Montana to live in the back woods on armed compounds? No sir, the majority of them became Republicans. If you can come up with any other explanation for where the racists who left the Democratic Party went, I'd love to hear it.

Here's a quiz: There were 400+ Republican candidates for national office in 2010. How many of them do you think were black? If they're not the party of white people, then where are all the people of color?

They are pandering to their base of ill-informed extreme right wingnuts. It doesn't matter that they know it will never become law as long as they can tell the Koch brothers, "See, we did what you told us to!"

The scary part isn't so much the irresponsibility of radicals in the house. I'm certain many are pandering for the Nov. 2012 elections. Either way they have the senate to moderate legislation. However, looking down the road a bit further it scares the hell out of me to consider the strong possibility that many of them will go on to become the next generation of senators.

Why are they wasting time with this? Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?

Because, along with a $6 trillion package of budget cuts, they're forcing the President and the Senate's hand to block them. Then, when they don't get exactly what they want, they can go back to their bat-shit-crazy core constituency and claim that the "liberal menace" is preventing any substantive change in the way the government operates.

It seems our current House of Representatives thinks that it is good to waste time and money passing House Resolutions defunding or outlawing everything that they don't like, all the while knowing that each resolution they pass has no chance to get past the Senate or the President. Why are they wasting time with this? Isn't there a governmental shutdown deadline this Friday? Shouldn't they be working on the budget instead of killing time with small-fry legislation that goes nowhere?

Forget the pros and cons of network neutrality, everyone should be coming together to support the Rule of Law. If you want the laws changed bug your Congresscritter.

I guess it's kind of sad that I read that last sentence as "If you want the laws changed buy your Congresscritter", and it actually made more sense that way.

I don't see this getting past the Senate, so it's probably not much of an issue right now. They do have a lot more important things to worry about. What really annoys me is that for all the Constitution-thumping that the Tea Partiers do, they don't seem to understand that the minority doesn't get to just come in and scream and yell about stuff and the

The issue is not one of right or wrong with regard to net neutrality here. It's not about protecting the consumer or corporation in the politicians eyes.

It's about a constitutional power given to congress specifically being usurped by the executive and the one thing that congress usually unites on no matter what's at stake, is the retention of their powers.

This really is something that congress will unite on because the underlying fact is not what's trying to be acco

If only more people analyzed issues from that angle. From Supreme Court judges down to regulatory bureaucrats, too many people are more interested in figuring out whether they're "for the little guy" than in whether they will carry out their functions according to the laws society has put in place. The rule of law is foundational to our freedoms -- it's based on the notion that no official is above the rules, and it's erosion isn't doing the little guy any favors in the long run.

Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with you. It specifically said that congress did not give the FCC authority over the internet in the way that net neutrality is concerned. Don't confuse a life guard who has authority over a pool areas with the cops who have authority over the city or county. They are not the same.

But it does; it just didn't have the power under Title I, where the Bush FCC decided to place the ISPs. See, the FCC decided almost a decade ago that ISPs weren't Title II common carriers, like phones or mail carriers, which require a certain level of scrutiny to prevent the company from interfering with the communications of private individuals in violation of the First Amendment. They instead decided to regulate ISPs as Title I information providers, like a newspaper or a TV station, who are free to do wh

There are no more moderate republicans. The ones you could consider Moderate have been marginalized, thrown under the bus, or left the party in disgust.Were you paying attention during the last election? Moderates found themselves with new, and aggressively funded ultra-conservative opponents thanks to the effective uncapping of campaign contribution limits.

I find it interesting that any mention of 'Republican' is immediately getting modded as troll or flamebait when the article itself points out the fact that this is driven by the Republican party. This only had 10 votes from the Democratic party. Just because you don't like the facts (and they are facts), doesn't make it trolling or flamebait.

Because that is exactly what you have without net neutrality. look upon my present and see your future! i'm on Cox (perfect name since they're dicks) and the caps are 36Gb residential, 76Gb commercial and the commercial line is nearly $200 a month, any going over? That's $1.50 per Gb please. Oh and Vonage, Linux and Mac updates? They all count against your cap. The "offerings" by Cox and Windows? they DO NOT.

So I hope you like walled gardens ala the old AOHell, because at $1.50 a Gb it doesn't take too many $200+ bills to put your ass in your place. And before anyone uses the old "vote with your dollars!" meme I'd point out my choices are Cox, AT&T DSL that MAXES at 756Kbps and which they've said they have NO intention of ever upgrading, or a WISP whose security is so damned bad you can surf the shares of everyone on a node through network neighborhood (and the head tech is so dim I never could get him to understand why that's bad, he still swears its a "feature") and who has a worse TOS than HughesNet.

So all you Time Warner and Comcast users, better be filling your boots, your time is running out. Once Cox rolls this out nationwide and the others see they get away with it? that's your ass Mr User, you are well and truly fucked. While the rest of the world surfs the information superhighway we are gonna be on the short bus to walled garden shittown. But hell the corps won't be happy until the USA is a third world country, so why not just pull the plug? More profits in walled gardens anyway!

And your point would be? The FCC won't stop the caps. The FCC isn't even talking about stopping the caps. Their stated goals are only to make it 'fair' so the Cable company can't kill Netflix in favor of their own video on demand offering or kill Vonage connectivity to push their ownVOIP product.

And they shouldn't stop the caps. People who use more of a resource should pay more than someone who uses less. What they should do is unleash market forces to destroy their monopoly creations but if you believ

Then the FCC tried to do it anyway and the courts shot them down on the grounds they lacked authority without a law from Congress. So Omaba's thugs just ignored all that and did it yet again.

I don't know if that's really accurate. I mean think about: Why does the FCC exist, if not to regulate telecommunications companies? Moreover, if the FCC isn't the right agency to regulate them then which is? Or should we just have telecommunications companies sprawling corrupt empires across the land with monopoly profits, like the robber barons of old?

The real problem is that the FCC is too deferential to the telcos. They're allowed to regulate them both as telecommunications providers and as information

> Currently the democrats control the senate, they're not going to vote for this.

Don't bet on it. When Network Neutrality was attempted the legal way both houses of Congress were in Democratic hands. Didn't pass. And I don't think you can filibuster one of these bills which assert Congressional oversight on the rulemakings of the Executive branch agencies.

It didn't pass because the Democrats never had a super majority in the Senate. That requires 60 votes and the Dems only had 58 at their highest. It would have required complete unison for every Democratic senator (something that rarely happens) in addition to getting the two independents to vote for it as well. Get 1 squeamish senator and the deal fails.

That doesn't make the reverse true either. The Republicans don't have anywhere near enough support to pass this in the senate at the moment and they definit

Wrong. There's no place for that term in political debate or intelligent discourse. Thugs threaten bodily harm and the characterization is totally repugnant. It pretty much invalidates whatever else he has to say. It's high time more people called out these perverse misrepresentations and fallacies that everyone loves to throw out to infuriate and scare people in American politics.

I didn't say the term was valid. I said the term did not invalidate anything said.

Please read what was said and not what you want to think was said because a term offended you. Again, I did not say the term or valid, I said the use of it did not invalidate it. I also said do not ignore the facts because you got offended but I guess that was hoping for too much.

The House Republicans kept none of their campaign promises, really. They promised to "repeal and replace" the Healthcare reform bill. The only thing they've managed to do is vote to defund portions of it, which isn't a repeal at all. A repeal requires the Senate and and the President to sign on board, which Congressional Republicans haven't managed to even come close to achieving. Secondly, they've failed to "replace" the Healthcare reform bill with their own reform bill, because there is no replacement bill proposed by the House thus far. Remember, the promise is to "repeal and replace", not "make an attempt at repeal and replace".

Oh, and their other major campaign promise of cutting $100 billion for fiscal year 2011? Yeah, that looks like it's going nowhere as well. Right now, the House Republicans are playing the "lower your expectations game" with their base right now.

Thirdly, laws must be made by the House and Senate - so that the House and Senate must work together and compromise in order to get a law passed. Just because the House passed a budget doesn't mean their role is over and it's completely up to the Senate. Both houses still need to negotiate on the total number of budget cuts to be done, which is what is being done right now, although all indicators point to stalemate.

Well, when the government runs out of money it will be interesting to see what happens. Maybe we will get real volunteer politicians in office that actually give a damn about anything other than ways they can screw the average American for their own benefit.

Libya is about oil? Ghadaffi had no problem selling us oil. I see no way we benefit in the short term from supporting Libya. The long term benefit being that they become a democratic country.

The healthcare bill is terrible. I supported it because it is better than what we had, but I welcome improvements to it. Republicans had all whole year of dragging out the healthcare bill debate to figure out what they wanted to do. So, where are their ideas.

The Republicans have done nothing of worth since they were elected besides cut a couple of tenths of a percent from the budget. And in response all you can do is talk about the Democrats. If you want me to argue how the Democrats did NOT go back on all of their campaign promises then I will. But I just want to point out that the fact that you are trying to shift the conversation away from the original debate shows that you know you will lose it.

yes, the republicans are 100% in agreement with their stance.... so are democrats... WORK IT OUT, instead of accusing each other of being idiots or uncooperative. As an independent I ignore most politics in congress because neither side views independent voters as people anyway (when it's not an election year)... All I see from here is both sides bickering over a few million dollars when last year congress approved over $40 billion in earmarks... Great,

Right. That's why Clinton left office with a huge surplus, while G. W. Bush managed to leave office with the largest deficit in history only 8 years later. Way to go with that "responsible parenting" thing, Repubs! Invading another country for no rational reason is something every responsible parent does! Oh, and that TARP bailout -- still trying to blame that on the Democrats, are we?

The D's tried to build a responsible budget. A budget requires two things: Income and expenditure. From 1990-200 these two things were relatively balanced. Bush, Sr rejected the devastating parts of Reagan's tax cuts allowing Clinton and the republican congress to develop an economic plan that lead to a period of prosperity and growth. However, Bush/Cheney implemented even more devastating tax cuts with massive increase in the budget. NCLB cost untold additional billions in local taxes, and expanded

"In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on Monday that the agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions.

The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal."

No need, the courts already told the FCC they didn't have the authority to do this. Obama has gone rogue and intends to do this heedless of the cost. This is fast approaching Constitutional Crisis time.

No one seems very interested in that now. Pick-and-choose arguments make great sound bites, but the sheer number of constitutional crises we've encountered over the last 10 years or so haven't elicited much more than a yawn and no more than a single news cycle from MSM (okay, a few papers actually had coverage, but that's about it).

Sorry kids, it's over. I think I'll live to see the whole mess come to bear, but it's still a good while off yet - I'd guess about 30-40 years for the real shit to hit the fan.

For some reason, conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine. What is the connection? or is it just a talking point and they are paying back their supporters?

If you don't bother to find out what it actually means, the term "net neutrality" sounds something like the fairness doctrine. The Republicican base is pretty much defined as those who don't bother to figure stuff out. The GOP knows this, and shamelessly exploits it at every opportunity.

conservatives get big donations from Big Telecom and they also view it as a way to limit opposition by stifuling the internet. Funny that a lot of their own ability to effectively message to their nutjob supporters will be impacted if they are successful.

No he didn't. He didn't say "I think" or "I believe" or "The way I see it"

He claimed specifically that the conservatives are equating or selling net neutrality as equivalent to the fairness doctrine, and then even asked why that is.

The only clue that it is an opinion is that it isnt based in the reality that I have been observing... more specifically, that he is either completely full of shit living in a fantasy world that bares no resemblance to reality, or that I have missed some rare pundit intervie

While I feel very strongly that content and distribution must be split up somehow with regard to major media control over internet access (hello, intrinsic structural conflict of interest), I cannot speak much to the current round of those pushing for net neutrality legislation, in part due to the copious amounts of obfuscation going on on all sides of the public policy issue, and in part due to the hidden and underhanded way in which legislation is drafted in this country (last-minute riders, for instance)

That said, the FCC *is* the Federal Communications Commission, so I'm a bit confused about how the internet would not fall under its purview just by definition.

You say "by definition" but are only talking about "title."

"Federal Communications Commission" is a title, not a charter. Did you know that you can actually look up their charter, as defined by law? That, BY DEFINITION, defines what is and is not under their purview.

You do realize that your whole argument is "Liberals want this and Liberals are evil so it must be bad", right. That is not a valid argument. Also, you are gonna have to give me some sort of citation that shows that they will use net neutrality to regulate political content. Just because you say it does not make it true.

Today, the House voted to adopt the resolution (H. Res. 200 [loc.gov]) that will allow it to consider the actual resolution to overturn the regulation tomorrow. Note the words "Providing for consideration" in the title of the actual vote [house.gov].

Granted, the House is still likely going to vote for the measure, but saying it's already passed is inaccurate.

Right, because no Democrats voted to authorize the war in Iraq! Oh, wait...

The only current difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that the Republicans currently hold the record for the worst president ever. But that's not for lack of trying on the behalf of the Democrats!

Carter was better than you remember. He just got blamed for the nasty medicine needed to stop hyperinflation. Once the Fed loosened up the money supply, we got the "Reagan Boom", but if you look at the economic growth figures the boom started in the waning months of the Carter administration and was in full swing in the first year of Reagan, well before any Reagan policies could take effect.

data is not like tangible commodities, so usage does not make sense. Also, usage based billing is just about preventing us from cutting our cable and using netflix instead. I cannot explain as well as the video, but that is it in a nutshell

It makes sense when the ISP's equipment costs are proportional to the amount of data it must transport (which they are). The video tries to sidestep that fact by suggesting that ISP's should have enough bandwidth available for all customers to be sending and receiving their maximum bandwidth at all times... which would be nice, but provisioning enough equipment to support that scenario would be extremely expensive, and pointless since most user's connections are idle most of the time. If ISPs were require

The fine video states (correctly as far as I'm concerned) that as bits are not a manufactured physical product, nor are they ever consumed, you shouldn't be charged for usage (i.e. consumption).

The bandwidth available to your neighborhood at any given time period is consumed. It isn't infinite. Scarcity is very real in broadband networks. Any time you have scarcity, price is a good way to prevent shortages.

Well Google certainly doesnt want the FCC to start regulating the internet.

First these rules are applied to providers, but eventually to all services by the very same reasoning. If your provider cannot discriminate content, then it stands to reason that neither can Google.. that Google cannot (for example) selectively discriminate against "low quality" sites (link farms, duplicators, etc..) in its search results.

A simple honest question fore the pro-regulators. Which ISP right now at this very moment ne

it is not the telecoms internet to begin with. Big Telecoms were given huge subsidies to build parts of the infrastructure and now they want to pretend that it is their and they can screw all the businesses that use if for their limited benefit.

Exactly right. In fact, we need to eliminate the FCC altogether, since as you said, it's moronically stupid to regulate industry. We don't need any regulations on radio spectrum; whoever has the higher-power transmitter should be the winner, and there should be no laws against jamming other peoples' transmissions.

How much have Comcast and Verizon payed out in campaign contributions to House members? Can somebody put together an approximate figure on what it cost to have rulings like this blocked by the house? It'll come in handy when I want them to create laws to benefit me.

I don't think this is the FCC's place, either. They already spend too much time & money deciding what can and can't go on our television and radio airwaves, for example. The FCC should be regulating communication so that providers aren't stepping all over each other's signals and that's pretty much it. Maybe I misunderstand the original intent of the FCC so please correct me if I'm wrong there.

On the other hand, I also don't want Big ISP regulating my internet connection, deciding what I can get and when I can get it. I want an internet connection without artificial limitations. I already pay Comcast far too much for their less-than-consistent service (and the reason I don't switch is because where I am the competitors fastest speeds aren't even close to as good as Comcast's slowest) and I don't need them practically filtering my connection based on how much the company I'm trying to connect to has paid them. I'm already paying Comcast! That's enough!

So... I guess I don't really know where I should stand on this issue. Any advice?

The FCC should be regulating communication so that providers aren't stepping all over each other's signals and that's pretty much it.

I see great overlap between this statement and proposed Net Neutrality regulation. One could argue that ensuring Comcast or any other ISP doesn't "step all over" my clear and unobstructed path to various Internet destinations ("channels") is much the same as doing it for the public airwaves.

The question to answer is whether or not we want to treat the Internet as a shared public resource like we do radio spectrum or a free-for-all controlled by government endorsed regional monopolies.

(and the reason I don't switch is because where I am the competitors fastest speeds aren't even close to as good as Comcast's slowest)

This suggests that Comcast is doing something right.

I'm not a fan of Comcast at all. Didn't like it when I heard they were playing man-in-the-middle and dropping Bittorrent traffic, certainly didn't like it when they started buying up content producers, and absolutely did not like their laughable attempt to re-define themselves as a peer with their ISP (Level 3.) That being said, Comcasts service seems to be equal or better than most providers at this time.

quote from wikipedia:As specified in section one of the Communications Act and as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. 151) it is the FCC's mission to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."[sic] The Act furthermore provide

Actually, The War Powers Resolution of 1973 gives the president the authority to send troops for 60 days provided he notifies congress first. This all happens without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. So essentially the president can send troops anywhere for 60 days regardless of how anyone feels about it, as long as they are there for only 60 days and withdraw within 30 days after that.

I know more forces than the Marine Corps are acting in Libya right now, but I was a Marine and the President most certainly has the authority to exert military force without declaring war any time he wants to.
I also know wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, but here's the WP [wikimedia.org] discussion on the USMC on that topic.

Mission
The United States Marine Corps serves as an amphibious force-in-readiness. As outlined in 10 U.S.C. 5063 and as originally introduced under the National Security Act of 1947, it has three primary areas of responsibility:

The seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and other land operations to support naval campaigns;

The development of tactics, technique, and equipment used by amphibious landing forces; and

Such other duties as the President may direct.

This last clause, while seemingly redundant given the president's position as Commander-in-chief, is a codification of the expeditionary duties of the Marine Corps.

"House Republicans voted unanimously today to block controversial Net neutrality regulations from taking effect, a move that is likely to invite a confrontation with President Obama.

By a vote of 241 to 178, the House of Representatives adopted a one-page resolution that says, simply, the regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on December 21 'shall have no force or effect.'

In other words, that 241 includes all of the House Republicans - none of them voted against the resolution.

Yes, just like the Pope is directly chosen by God through a majority vote of the College of Cardinals. And sometimes it takes dozens of rounds of voting for God to make his infallible selection clear to the Cardinals.

What I have never understood is why the National Federation of Independent Business, the trade association that putatively represents small business, has not defended net neutrality. Without it costs will rise in a variety of ways, not just in terms of paying tolls so that customers can reach your site, but in increased costs for any ASP and SaaS software that you use in your business. Without net neutrality the cloud computing business model becomes far less economic. There are way too many complacent acto